SNR and throughput analysis of distributed collaborative beamforming in locally‐scattered environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Three main collaborative beamforming (CB) solutions based on different channel models exist: the optimal CSI‐based CB (OCB), the conventional or monochromatic (i.e., single‐ray) distributed CB (M‐DCB), and the recently developed bichromatic (i.e., two‐ray) distributed CB (B‐DCB). In this paper, we perform an analytical comparison, under practical constraints, between these CB solutions in terms of achieved signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) as well as achieved throughput. Assuming the presence of local scattering in the source vicinity and accounting for implementation errors incurred by each CB solution, we derive for the first time closed‐form expressions of their true achieved SNRs. For low angular spread (AS), where both solutions nominally achieve the same SNR in ideal conditions, we show that the B‐DCB always outperforms OCB, more so and at larger regions of AS values when errors increase. Excluding exceptional circumstances of unrealistic low quantization levels (i.e., very large quantization errors) that are hard to justify in practice, we also show that the new B‐DCB always outperforms the M‐DCB as recently found nominally in ideal conditions. This work is also the first to push the performance analysis of CB to the throughput level by taking into account the feedback overhead cost incurred by each solution. We prove both by concordant analysis and simulations that the B‐DCB is able to outperform, even for high AS values, the OCB which is penalized by its prohibitive implementation overhead, especially for a large number of collaborating terminals and/or high Doppler frequencies. Indeed, it is shown that the operational regions in terms of AS values over which the new B‐DCB is favored against OCB in terms of achieved throughput can reach up to 40°. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".